2013 (11) TMI 535

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hammed Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.Vijayakarthikeyan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. In the annexure to the show cause notices, the respondents rely upon the reports of the Energy Auditor as well as the statements of some officers and witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P. (MD). No. 1106 of 2013 made a request for the cross-examination of those officers and witnesses. The petitioners in the other two writ petitions did not make any such request. 4. However, by independent communications containing the same reasons, the enquiry officer rejected the request for cross-examination. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. The fact that the annexure to the show ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efficiency of an Enquiry Officer depends only upon making things move in an enquiry. Therefore, the fact that there was a delay on the part of the petitioner in giving an explanation, is no ground to deny, the most essential right of a person, against whom an enquiry is conducted. 8. It appears that the petitioners in the other two writ petitions have also submitted similar objections belatedly. Though the respondents claim that they were only interim replies and not explanations to the show cause notices, I do not think that anything will turn on the question. Whether it was an interim reply or an explanation, I am only concerned with a short question, as to whether, the petitioners are entitled to cross-examine of the witnesses or n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....part of the most essential rights is sufficient to grant the request. But, the enquiry officer cannot test the request for cross-examination on the strength of the reasons. Therefore, the second ground on which the request of the petitioners is rejected, also cannot be sustained. 10 The third ground on which the request of the petitioners is rejected is that none of the witnesses had retracted from their original statements. I am surprised at such a stand taken by the respondents. Retraction from an early statement would normally occur only during the course of the enquiry. In the course of the enquiry, witnesses have not been examined so far. In other words, the respondents have presumed that the right to cross-examine would arise on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el also contended that under the guise of cross-examination, the petitioners cannot protract the proceedings and cannot summon all sundry. I do not think that this could happen. It is only those persons whose statements are taken on record in the enquiry and relied upon by the department, who can be summoned, for cross-examination. There is no necessity to cross-examine persons, who recorded such statements. Persons who gave statements and who are witnesses, alone are liable to be cross-examined by the petitioners. Similarly, the report of the Energy Auditor is also of a vital significance. Hence, he should be made available for cross-examination. 13. It is needless to point out that once the petitioners are put on notice sufficiently....